1

Joe-
Just curious, by what criteria do you consider Sullivan a "brother in Christ?" I know he waves his catholicism about pretty boldy, but his "Christianity" could be entirely civil and not spiritual.

I'm not trying to pass judgement here, but what fruit has his tree produced? What testimony do we have of his faith in the work of Christ? By what means do we consider him a brother and not reprobate?

2

Joe,

I find it curious that you call Sullivan a brother-in-Christ. A man who unrepentently engages in homosexual activity.

So curious that I wonder if you would ever see fit to say that anyone who says they are your brother-in-Christ are not?

3

Glenn Just curious, by what criteria do you consider Sullivan a "brother in Christ?"

I use the same criteria (perhaps a flaw from being raised Baptist) that I would use for anyone else: confession of faith in Christ. Sullivan confesses to being a follower of Jesus:

As to one's own faith, I think it's possible to maintain a prayer life, a relationship with the Jesus of the gospels, and an attempt to live out those ideals in one's life while remaining a proud gay man. In some ways, I think the experience of marginalization that homosexuals have can deepen their spiritual life. Jesus' message, after all, was that faith belongs to the excluded; and that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. The exclusion of gays from the Catholic church is an opportunity to grow closer to Christ, not further away. But it might mean that to reach Jesus, one has to bypass the hierarchy of the church.

I know he waves his catholicism about pretty boldy, but his "Christianity" could be entirely civil and not spiritual.

You may be right. And I’ll even go so far as to say that Sullivan appears to be a very immature believer. But I’m not sure that I can say that he is not my “brother.”

By what means do we consider him a brother and not reprobate?

I would say that he is a reprobate in the sense of “a morally unprincipled person” (at least on some issues). I’m not sure I have the authority, though, to say that he is “one who is predestined to damnation.”

Eric & Lisa I find it curious that you call Sullivan a brother-in-Christ. A man who unrepentently engages in homosexual activity.

Unfortunately, I know plenty of believers who believe that certain activities (pride, gluttony, etc.) are not sin and are not completely repentant. But I’m not ready to write all of them off as apostates just yet.

So curious that I wonder if you would ever see fit to say that anyone who says they are your brother-in-Christ are not?

Let me clarify what I mean by a “brother in Christ” by defining what I don’t mean when I use that term: I don’t mean that I know their salvation is assured (only God knows the answer to that one); I don’t mean that I have evidence of his regeneration (he appears to have a long way to go on the road to sanctification); and I don’t mean that he is not on the road to apostasy. All it means is that I take him at his word: that he confesses to being a follower of Jesus Christ.

Obviously I take issue with Sullivan’s unrepentant homosexual behavior. But while I truly believe his sin has ensnared him in a trap of self-deception, I think he has convinced himself that his behavior is not a sin. This doesn’t let him off the hook, but I do believe it is different from someone who does recognize that they are committing sin and they do it anyway.

What it ultimately comes down to is that I am not ready to excommunicate Sullivan from the fold – at least not yet. I may eventually get to the point where I no longer believe that he is really a “brother in Christ.” But for now, I’ll still make room on the pew for Sullivan, Pat Robertson, and a few others whose “fruit” I consider questionable.

4

While my disagreements with Sullivan are near universal, I think it's pretty much undeniable that he's right about one thing: in politics, Christianity is almost always represented as a right-wing religion. Anti-gay (anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption, even being upset that sodomy laws were repealed), anti-abortion, along with other conservative social views, and even conservative views on social policy are framed as the Christian positions, in political discourse. That may not be true elsewhere, but center and left Christians have not made a point of attaching their religion to their positions publically with anything approaching the frequency that right Christians have. It certainly gives the appearance that Christianity = the political right (especially on social issues).

5

Joe writes;

All it means is that I take him at his word: that he confesses to being a follower of Jesus Christ.

This is fascinating.

So when you say of someone, "They are a Christian." or, "They are my brother in Christ" what you are really saying is simply, "Well, that's what they claim." and nothing else?

So a Christian to Joe Carter is simply someone who claims to be a Christian and nothing more?

6

Sorry Joe, I just cannot stop contemplating the consequences of living by these words;

I don’t mean that I know their salvation is assured (only God knows the answer to that one); I don’t mean that I have evidence of his regeneration (he appears to have a long way to go on the road to sanctification); and I don’t mean that he is not on the road to apostasy. All it means is that I take him at his word: that he confesses to being a follower of Jesus Christ"

Didn't you just describe the whole world? By defining someone by what you do not know about them, it sounds to me like you've just made the entire world your brother in Christ.

I have a friend who works with me, he is a Muslim. Not a very devout Muslim, but he grew up in Iran and it is the religion he grew up with. He told me a few years ago that he is a follower of Jesus Christ.

I was shocked at first, "You're a Christian?" and he said no, he was a Muslim. I said, how could you be a follower of Jesus Christ if you are a Muslim. He then tried to explain to me how Muslims are followers of Jesus Christ.

It seems that by your standard Joe, he too should be your brother-in-Christ.

7

Joe:

I see your post as a bridge-building, dialogue-oriented attempt.

I heartily agree with most of your point:

there are also very orthodox believers, evangelicals and Catholics, who nonetheless respect the freedom and conscience of others as part of their core understanding of what being a Christian is. They have no problem living next to an atheist or a gay couple or a single mother or people whose views on the meaning of life are utterly alien to them--and without condoning sin, still manage to love and respect their neighbors. That doesn't threaten their faith because they know that all humans—including themselves—are sinful creatures and fall short of the glory of God. Sometimes the contrast between their neighbors’ behavior and their own helps them understand their own need for salvation better.

My reservation is, that in some cultures and times, there is an imposition under false colours of knowledge and law that is destructive, i.e. of sinful rejection of blatant truth about God the world and our hearts as Rom 1 describes, thus lifestyles that spin out of moral control, as well as just plain foolishness and deception, that should be exposed and opposed. For if unchecked, they will lead to chaos, ruin, and eventually a call for order at any cost -- i.e. for tyranny.

In so acting, we must be within the Mt 7:1 - 5 principle of taking out planks in own eyes first so one can see clearly to help others with sawdust. In short, the Christian standard is, truth in love, purity and power from God.

So, in the presentation of the gospel and its modelling and defense in the public, our standard of ethics of persuasion is:

2CO 4:1 . . . 2 . . . we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

This is of course, always a major challenge, and one that we struggle to attain. In that context, I must take a specific reservation, based on:

1CO 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

And, that is to be understood in further light of:

RO 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

RO 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. [In short, nature, mind and morals have in them the unmistakeable stamp: made by God. We reject that by insisting on begging worldview questions in an atmosphere of hostility to our Creator, because in the end we wish to live a life out of proper order in creation -- thus, the chaos that flows from our rebellion. This, Paul now details . . .]

RO 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. [And, images on TV, in movies, or in museums -- notice the subtlety "made to look like" [then cf. how dinosaurs etc are reconstructed, and how they are surrounded with the evolutionary materialist self-refuting myth of origins under false colour of knowledge], magazines and textbooks are in principle no different from those in the old pagan temples]

RO 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

RO 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

RO 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity . . . 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them . . . .

2:6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. . . . 11 For God does not show favoritism.

--> Here, I first note that the Christian position here advocates that there are traces of God in the world and in ourselves, sufficient that we must actively suppress the intuitive knowledge of God. the hostility exhibited by a great many atheists and their fellow travellers when God comes up -- with all due respect to them and to those who are exceptional to this pattern that is all too familiar in this blog -- and evidence for God comes up is actually eloquent testimony to the suppression. I invite such to examine the issues using appropriate worldview analysis tools, not to indulge in selective hyperskepticism.

--> I also note that the design inference issue is not about Christian theism, but about whether one can see traces of design in the way things are in nature. The question, who is the designer goes beyond the remit of science to the realms of both philosophy and [in principle] historical fact. Thus, to highlight the implication of design in nature and of mind and morals in man is a legitimate intellectual endeavour.

--> A similar point holds for those who reject the reality of the law of human nature as set by nature's Creator and God, as a moral creature, aptly summarised by Hooker in Ecclesiastical Polity and cited by Locke in his 2nd Essay on Govyt Ch 2 section 5 as the launchpad for his own discussion:

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.

--> Blackstone aptly amplifies:

Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being . . . consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker's will. This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws . . . These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly [NB: cf. Exod. 20:15 - 16], should hurt nobody [NB: cf. Rom 13:8 - 10], and should render to every one his due [NB: cf. Rom 13:6 - 7 & Exod. 20:15]; to which three general precepts Justinian[1: a Juris praecepta sunt hace, honeste vivere. alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. Inst, 1. 1. 3] has reduced the whole doctrine of law [and, Corpus Juris, Justinian's Christianised precis and pruning of perhaps 1,000 years of Roman jurisprudence, in turn is the foundation of law for much of Europe]. [Parenthetical remarks and emphases added.]

--> Now, too, the point is that those who turn from God as he has revealed himself lose control over their passional nature and are subject to disordered expressions of sexuality in particular. I am not saying that some Christians do not struggle with temptations that are of various forms including sexual ones of various types, but I am speaking to the ruling passions and ideas in our lives, as was Paul.

--> he goes further: if one's life and mind are controlled by ideas and passions similar to those in the yardstick list in 1 Cor 6:9 - 11, one is simply not in the faith. He holds out hope that by the power of the Christ and the Spirit, repentance and renewal of mind and reformation of life are possible and are a mark of genuine discipleship. by sharpest contrast, if one rejects the truth and follows evil, one is in the path of eternal death -- radical alienation from God.

I think that in assessing the issues as posed by Mr Sullivan, these should be reckoned with. I think that it is the Apostles of Jesus who get to define the Christian Faith, not us. If we want to have a comfortable religion, we should not fly [perhaps unwittingly – a great many fail to present the faith in its historically authentic form these days . . . witness the DVC movie to be released this week and the runaway success of the book, which is blatantly false on the history] a false flag that it is a Christian faith we have -- that faith is the faith of confessors and martyrs, not that of the comfortable.

In short, truth in love requires surgery sometimes, and that hurts. But, let us persist in the path of repentance, renewal and reformation under God by the power of his Spirit.

+++++++++

Grace to all

Gordon

8

If Sullivan's name and the word Christian are linked, I personally think it should be as a Boulder Christian.

What's that?

I lived in Boulder CO for over a decade (moved in '02). There, you get to meet lots of Buddhists, yogis, Wiccans, etc. Even the occasional Christian (although they basically ran the Promisekeepers out of Boulder, that haven for what the left calls "free speech"). But heaven forbid that they should go out of their way to actually practice any of these religions or philosophies. They attach themselves to the name and engage in logical gymnastics to reject the difficult parts of what it means to actually practice the religion/philosophy they've adopted in any meaningful sense.

Whatever label they adopt, they tend to be left-wing epicurean greens. Hence, the label Boulder-Buddhist, or Boulder-Wiccan. Sullivan's "Christianity" falls pretty squarely, in my opinion, in the Boulder-Christian category.

9

I had another thought Joe.

My in-laws are all Mormon and insist that they are followers of Christ.

Are they too your brothers and sisters in Christ?

10

A note:

Anticipating a likely line of attempted rebuttal, let me excerpt from a recent post in the Theocracy thread, on the subject of the self-referential inconsistencires in Evolutionary materialism:

--> Indeed, as Joe notes in his Edge essays post, this set of issues is also recognised by many responsible thinkers on the evo mat side, e.g., Joe's Edge Essay post. Maybe the most telling case in point from this post is an excerpt from THOMAS METZINGER, President of the German Cognitive Science Society:

You like this basic idea: physical determinism is compatible with being a free agent. You endorse a materialist philosophy of freedom as well. An intellectually honest person open to empirical data, you simply believe that something along these lines must be true.

Now you try to feel that it is true. You try to consciously experience the fact that at any given moment of your life, you could not have acted otherwise. You try to experience the fact that even your thoughts, however rational and moral, are predetermined — by something unconscious, by something you can not see. And in doing so, you start fooling around with the conscious self-model Mother Nature evolved for you with so much care and precision over millions of years . . . You are challenging the integrity of your phenomenal self by trying to integrate your new beliefs, the neuroscientific image of man, with your most intimate, inner way of experiencing yourself. How does it feel?

I think that the irritation and deep sense of resentment surrounding public debates on the freedom of the will actually has nothing much to do with the actual options on the table. It has to do with the — perfectly sensible — intuition that our presently obvious answer will not only be emotionally disturbing, but ultimately impossible to integrate into our conscious self-models.

In short, my point is one conceded by the ilk of the president of the German Cognitive Science Society. Unless evolutionary materialsists can resolve it, and for 150 years they cannot do so, their system is under the sentence of being self-referentially incoherent.

Until this issue is frankly addressed and properly resolved -- ad it is att he core of thesystem and undermines the thoiught processes we would need to resolve it -- we need not trouble ourselves unduly with its assertions and pronouncements on morality or issues generally. It MUST be false, through embedding inescapable contradiction.

Okay

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

11

So when you say of someone, "They are a Christian." or, "They are my brother in Christ" what you are really saying is simply, "Well, that's what they claim." and nothing else?

So a Christian to Joe Carter is simply someone who claims to be a Christian and nothing more?

Joe seems to be exhibiting the virtue of humility by not presuming to know the heart of either God or Sullivan. Something I think Sullivan has correctly chided the politicized Christianists of forgetting.

Just curious, by what criteria do you consider Sullivan a "brother in Christ?" I know he waves his catholicism about pretty boldy, but his "Christianity" could be entirely civil and not spiritual.

On the contrary, Sullivan has written extensively about his faith from the spiritual perspective. Since he is primarily a political commentator it is sometimes easy to not notice that he has said more about his issues of faith from a philosophical perspective than many others. You are free, of course, to argue that he has gotten it wrong but don't short change the efforts he has put forth.

Also, another thing, Sullivan is a political conservative. I know the Stephen Colbert legions here find it difficult to imagine a conservative who does not follow George Bush as their personal savior but Sullivan's policy perferences have been squarely in the conservative tradition. Even his support of gay rights has a right wing flavor to it (he does not, for example, support the type of laws on the books against private racial discrimination...instead he would apply a strict standard where the gov't could not discriminate in employment or in law but private groups...be they a Church or even just a small business are free to do so if they wish).

12

Joe Carter believes proud open practicing homosexual catholics are "brothers in Christ".

Sir, repent of this. As you are publishing this you are communicating open rebellion and unrepentant sin is orthodox.

"Unfortunately, I know plenty of believers who believe that certain activities (pride, gluttony, etc.) are not sin and are not completely repentant. But I’m not ready to write all of them off as apostates just yet."

?!? If one claims to know the ALL Holy One and holds that pride, gluttony, homosexuality is NOT a sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him. The Truth is the Holy Spirit and he CANNOT lie.

13

Is shocked claiming to be the Holy Spirit himself?

14

Like Joe, I have a lot of disagreements with Sullivan on his positions. But the safe, and responsible thing is to acknowledge Sullivan's claim to his Christian faith, and consider him a brother accordingly. We don't have the knowledge or ability to judge another person’s relationship with God. Furthermore, it's dangerous to assume that particular observed sins invalidate that person's salvation. Given that we're all sinners and stand equally condemned by those sins, along with the fact that we all continue to sin even after accepting Christ, why should Andrew Sullivan's sins serve as a condemnation of his faith, while our own sins don't say the same about us?

The old line of hate the sin but love the sinner applies here. Disagree with Sullivan's positions and actions, and argue against those, but don't take the presumptive leap to go from there and judge his salvation. That's God's authority alone.

15

You can say what you want about Sullivan...he still hammered the nail right on the head and probably close enough to the sweet spot to compel the lot of you to yap about it. the christian cult is really little more than a political action commity nowadays...i imagine it always was when you think about it. And it is a fact that God is basicaly unknowable. I believe in God...i dont believe for a second that there is more divine inspiration in the bable than there is in Tolkien's The Hobbit and i have yet to be shown evidence to the contrary...

You want to know why the Bible condemns homosexuality? Here's a theory...its probably for the same reason it consigns women to the role of serving broodmares or claims that people used to live to be 900+ and chatted with talking snakes and donkeys...because the men who wrote it were chauvinistic emasculates who didnt have a clue and didnt want one because they considered their cluelessness to be a badge of honor...and in that respect they are kindred spirits to many of the visitors of this blog. Its probably why i enjoy comming here so much...you know...opposites attracts

16

Eric's comments strike me as especially ironic. As I recall, Eric is a member of the Church of Christ. Many members of his "nondenomination" would not consider Joe a Christian brother.

17

Joe,

I enjoy your blog, and have for sometime. This post, however, has made my respect for you go up a few notches. You've written an article that challenged your core readership and caused this reader to think and reexamine some basic assumptions.

Also, you managed to create an interesting tactic by opening by calling Andrew Sullivan a "brother-in-Christ" and then proceeding on to building a flank on the other side by thoroughly analyzing his arguement.

It would take more time than I can spare in the middle of the day to digest the contents of this article - but I thought I would drop you a line and let you know that I feel this is some of your better work as your managed to write a thoughtful, fair, and provocative arguement through this medium...which is quite rare for any blog.

In short, while I really haven't fully absorbed the article I just wanted to tell you good job and keep it up.

18

Love this topic and the discussion. Thanks.

I think this is most interesting because Evangelical Christianity would rightly claim that Jesus Christ is the stumbling block. However when separating Christian from christian it seems more helpful to define one's believe is special revelation. i.e. is the Bible God breathed or is it humanly written? This one belief seems to separate the social conservatives from the more political or financial ones.

19

Eric and Lisa,

It seems you're purposefully confusing Joe's words. It seems obvious (at least to me) that, implicitly, he has a hard time declaring flatly that someone is "predestined to hell" if they are a.) orthodox but b.) morally flawed.

That seems sensible. Don't we all have blindspots? What about 19th century slave-owning Baptists? Are we ready to declare them to be in hell? Couldn't we find some anachronistic blindspot with which we could condemn, well, just about every previus generation?

This strikes me as a COMPLETELY different question from whether someone who is clearly NOT orthodox and claims to be a Christian. That isn't about the tricky question of fruit. It's about defining orthodoxy.

Don't you see the distinction? Just because Joe says he accepts *SOME* people at their word about being a disciple of Christ doesn't mean he's some raging relativist. To insinuate that is just sloppy reading. And Jesus hates sloppy reading.

20

Eric & Lisa So when you say of someone, "They are a Christian." or, "They are my brother in Christ" what you are really saying is simply, "Well, that's what they claim." and nothing else?

I’m not sure what else I can be claiming. I don’t know you personally, don’t know whether your are “saved”, have never observed your behavior, or heard you recite the Nicene Creed. But I assume that you are, as you claim, a “Christian.” Wouldn’t you be offended if I didn’t take you at your word?

So a Christian to Joe Carter is simply someone who claims to be a Christian and nothing more?

Not necessarily. I’m simply saying that in the absence of other evidence my first inclination is to believe that those who say they are a Christian are in fact Christians.

Didn't you just describe the whole world?

No. The last time I checked, the whole world does not consider themselves “followers of Christ.”

By defining someone by what you do not know about them, it sounds to me like you've just made the entire world your brother in Christ.

I think you are making to much of my attempt to be generous in assuming that anyone who claims to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior does so with sincerity.

I have a friend who works with me, he is a Muslim. Not a very devout Muslim, but he grew up in Iran and it is the religion he grew up with. He told me a few years ago that he is a follower of Jesus Christ.

I would say that your friend not only misunderstands what it means to be a “follower of Christ” but misunderstands what it means to be a Muslim.

It seems that by your standard Joe, he too should be your brother-in-Christ.

No. A “follower of Christ” means someone who recognizes that Jesus is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, and confesses Christ as their Lord and Savior.

My in-laws are all Mormon and insist that they are followers of Christ. Are they too your brothers and sisters in Christ?

No. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals, are among the groups that I do not consider to be my “brothers and sisters in Christ.”

Shocked Joe Carter believes proud open practicing homosexual catholics are "brothers in Christ".

No, what I believe is that someone can possibly be a brother in Christ despite the fact that they are practicing homosexuals.

Sir, repent of this. As you are publishing this you are communicating open rebellion and unrepentant sin is orthodox.

***sigh***

No, I’m not. And I find it slanderous that you would say such a thing.

?!? If one claims to know the ALL Holy One and holds that pride, gluttony, homosexuality is NOT a sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him. The Truth is the Holy Spirit and he CANNOT lie.

So are you saying that as a Christian it is impossible for you to lie?

I don’t know whether Sullivan is a Christian or not. Although he claims to be, many people have pointed out that since he is unrepentant about his sin that he cannot be considered an orthodox believer.

21

Leaving aside the howling from Christianists over whether Joe should be expelled for having the gaul to view Sullivan as a brother-Christian...

Let's look at Joe's point. He tried to juxtapose Sullivan's attacks on Christianists with an attack on Sullivan's own views. The problem is that the Joe misses the essence of Sullivan's criticism.

Sullivan is criticizing a type Christian who is intolerant of the idea of a seperation between religious orthodoxy and civil society. The Christianist does not view the fight for religious orthodoxy to end at the border between civil society and religion...hence the need to carry religion into politics:

I'm not quite done yet. Here's one point worth dealing with. It's the notion that everyone has a religion, whether they call it that or not - including "secular humanism" - and that trying to curtail Christianity or Islam or any other faith from direct application to political life and civil law creates a double-standard. People can bring their secular worldviews into politics, but Christians cannot bring their religious doctrines. No fair, many argue. In fact, these rules are actively discriminatory against Christian fundamentalists. Hence the so-called "war on Christianity."

This argument is based, I believe, on a misunderstanding of religion. The difference between a world-view, based on empirical evidence or reason or personal experience and open to debate, and a religion, based on an inerrant text or revelation or church authority and closed to doubt, is that the religion demands to be taken much more seriously. It insists on its own divine authority - as it must - and that authority cannot be held hostage to the results of a political conversation or debate or election. It rests on God Almighty. By definition, therefore, the conflation of our politics with the will of God makes political discourse largely impossible, because we don't all believe in the same God or even in God at all. And so the introduction of religious authority into politics makes all our political dealings inseparable from profound differences over the deepest things - the meaning of life, the existence of God, the nature of God, and so on.

Politics, as we have come to understand it in the West, cannot operate on those grounds. It did once. And Europe was filled with the smoke from the burning flesh of heretics. The decision to remove such profound issues from politics was definitive of the West's emergence from the dark ages, and it is integral to any understanding of the American experiment in limited government and individual liberty. The absolute demands of fundamentalist faith make the West's tradition of civil compromise impossible; and they constantly push the boundaries of what is acceptable to God, as religious purists outdo each other in proving their righteousness - whether it be keeping comatose patients alive for decades or defining a zygote as a full human person. Hence our politics has degenerated into a "culture war." Wars are what happens when politics become impossible. And that is the corrosive effect of Christianism; and why it must be resisted - for the sake of American discourse and for the sake of a vibrant, humble apolitical Christianity.

Read this carefully. Sullivan is not saying that you cannot argue that a zygot is a full human person or that euthansia should be outlawed. (Although he disagrees with these views). He is arguing against the type of Christianity that refuses to recognize and respect the values and opinions of non-Christians and justify policy prescriptions on objective criteria rather than simple dogma.

Now on a side note I think some Christianists have attempted to justify policy from objective facts but have fallen into the trap of distorting facts to suit their ends. A lot has been written about the attempts of the Bush administration to subvert science in order to meet ideological ends, especially when it comes to contraception. Sometimes I think it would be better if Christianists stopped trying to pretend they had objective science on their side and just came out honestly and state their ideological goals. For example, with contraception it would be refreshing to hear, "we think this type of birth control should be outlawed because people will have more sex with it available".

22

Hey Joe,

One of the most frustrating things I found about the article is this notion that religion shouldn't influence politics - as if this is some sort of self-evident truth. This post-enlightenment rhetoric is really troublesome to me, partially because of the people it condemns.

If we condemn religious people trying to implement the ideals of their faith in the world of politics we condemn:

William Wilburforce (abolition of slavery in England)
Detrich Bonhoeffer (resistance of nazis in germany)
Martin Luther King Jr. (civil rights movement)
Desmond Tutu (reconcilliation after apartheid in South Africa)

Is Mr. Sullivan really willing to argue that MLK jr. should have kept his "personal" religious feelings to himself, and out of the public arena?

Granted people may dislike the religious right, but it's absurd to act as if the solution to this is to push religion into the closet - and condemn some of the greatest visionaries of our era in the process.

23

"Jesus' message, after all, was that faith belongs to the excluded; and that the first shall be last and the last shall be first."
Interesting that Sullivan would use these words; in the New Testament Christ speaks these words as a promise of fulfillment to his followers who have given up that which they most value to follow Him. We all know what Sullivan values most (Fr. Neuhaus memorably called it the pole star of Andrew Sullivan's existence) and in fact Sullivan seems more inclined to believe that happiness will come sooner from unbound access to sodomy than from unbund access to God.
Some Christians fight their sin and win.
Some Christians fight their sin and lose.
And some Christians, unfortunately, embrace their sin as a lover.

24

Gordon,

Wow, the German Cognitive Science Society. As a cognitive scientist, I didn't even know that existed! But a quote from its head must be definitive. On the other hand, I've known the last 4 heads of the Cognitive Science Society (the largest cognitive science professional society in the world, and a truly international group, and it is the most respected) personally, and each has been pretty religious (though one was Jewish, not Christian). Of course, they're all "evolutionists," but none of them are pysical determinists. Strange, huh?

25

Is Mr. Sullivan really willing to argue that MLK jr. should have kept his "personal" religious feelings to himself, and out of the public arena?

I don't think this is what Sullivan is arguing. He is not arguing that religious beliefs should not influence politics but that decisions in the public area should be based on more than simple religious belief. In principle the religious pro-lifer should mount an argument for overturning Roe.v.Wade that the athiest would agree too.

For example, MLK Jr was a Baptist yet, oddly, Jews and Catholics did not feel they were violating their faith by joining him. Contrast this with the so-called 'worldview' orientated Christianists who would view someone without the correct faith as suspect regardless of whether or not he agreed with their political stances.

We all know what Sullivan values most (Fr. Neuhaus memorably called it the pole star of Andrew Sullivan's existence)

We do Terry? Wow, I didn't know you were so close to Sullivan or that you had such God-like knowledge.

26

Boonton,

I don't know if I quite follow you. At least, I don't see much a distinction between the modern pro-life movement and the civil rights movement of the 60s as far as ecumenism is concerned. Christian pro-lifers are more than happy to ally with people from all over the religious spectrum on this issue. Indeed, it is arguably the source of much recent reconciliation between Evangelicals and Catholics. Jews are very welcome. Heck, feminists for life are welcome.

Alliances with Muslims on the issue of abortion are even welcome, although bad feelings are pretty strong due to the large amount of Christian blood being spilt by Muslims in Africa and Asia. Again - I don't see the difference.

It looks as though people, driven by their faith, are standing against something they believe to be violently attrocious, and are happy to ally with any like-minded people who might think otherwise on other issues.

27

Would you say that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are good examples of this ecumenical spirit or of a more exclusionary spirit? Remember neither I nor Sullivan are indicting all Christians or even those with political positions whose primary motivation is religion.

28

I have no problem with people promoting a political agenda that is inspired by their personal convictions, be they religious or otherwise. What does bother me is that some would use positions of influence to secure government endorsement or promotion of a particular religion.

Christians are certainly the majority in this country, but we have a secular government, not a religious one. At the risk of being misunderstood, let me reiterate that secular does not mean humanist. Secular means that the government neither promotes nor denigrates any religious belief or lack of religious belief.

We are a country of many religions, but with a singular commitment to upholding the constitution. E pluribus unum. The constitution specifically bans a religious test for any office. We are not a theocracy.

29

Boonton wrote:
"We do Terry? Wow, I didn't know you were so close to Sullivan or that you had such God-like knowledge."

Uh, have you ever read Sullivan's blog, Boonton? Acceptance of gay marriage is Sullivan's gold standard (though I think the 'pole star' allusion is more apt). It is the reference point against which all other values are judged. Do you seriously contest this? Do you have any doubt at all that if McCain were to endorse the idea of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman that Sullivan would switch from supporting McCain as a presidential candidate in 2008 to opposing him?
You don't have to be close to Sullivan or have God like knowledge to know what Sullivan's priorities are. You just have to know how to read.

30

You didn't say priorities. You said "We all know what Sullivan values most..." and you didn't say gay marriage. You said "unbound access to sodomy". Certainly whether or not you agree with gay marriage there's a difference between it and "unbound access to sodomy". Would you describe hetrosexual marriage as "unbound access to vaginal intercourse"? If guy in a bar told you his highest value was "having unbound access to vaginal intercourse (most likely he would use less family friendly terminology)" would you assume he was saying he wanted to settle down and marry a nice girl?

31

It is a big mistake for Christian's of any political stripe to align themselves with a political party.

There are many reasons for this. One obvious reason is that Christianity is then characterized by the party. How is it that the Republican party exhibits Christ-likeness? How is it that the USA has exhibited Christ-likeness? This is especially a problem when you hear conservatives say that they are taking America "back to God"! When was America with God? Was it when we exterminated millions of American Indians? Was it during the time of slavery? Oh, I remember, before the 1960's right? Oh wait, No, I don't think Jim Crow laws represent Christ very well! Well, at least supporting dictatorial governments is definitely exhibiting Christ-likeness, right? Most importantly, lets definitely not forget the message of Christ to a "just pull up your boot straps" mentality. Christ didn't say anything positive about the poor and told people to just make sure that the government doesn't take your hard-earned money.

And for the liberals, did we represent Christ-likeness when we passed all the welfare laws, etc in the 60's and 70's? For democrats to claim that they are exhibiting Christ-like behavior because "they care" enough for taxes to help those in need is just as bad as republicans. Having a bureacracy take care of the poor is not taking care of the poor. How does a bureacracy give a boy or girl a hug who just lost a parent or sibling to a gunshot?, or uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, etc. The poor or otherwise need us to be involved, not the government to hand them a few hundred dollars a month.

Jesus was not about power-over others. He was/is about power-under. With the Kingdom of God, everything is reversed. The last are first, etc. Aligning with politics is about having power over people which is the complete opposite of what we are to be as Christ-followers.

This does not mean you can't be politically involved at all. It just means that it is not the way by any means to be a Christian. You can technically be a communist and a Christian (though i think that may be tough). There are too many people that do not get that! Mostly conservative people but definitely liberal as well.

32

Boontoon,

Is Mr. Sullivan really willing to argue that MLK jr. should have kept his "personal" religious feelings to himself, and out of the public arena?
I don't think this is what Sullivan is arguing. He is not arguing that religious beliefs should not influence politics but that decisions in the public area should be based on more than simple religious belief. In principle the religious pro-lifer should mount an argument for overturning Roe.v.Wade that the athiest would agree too.

I disagree, you can have principles that are just religious in decision making in the public arena!

I think that Sullivan is mostly just having trouble with any party representing themselves as the party of Christ. There are plenty of Christians that believe in government bureacracy to help the poor and their belief in "helping the poor" is based all on religious philosophy. They may even disagree with an atheist view point on why the government should be involved. The problem would be when the Christian liberal said, "we represent Christ and you (conservatives) don't".

33

Christ clearly taught that not everyone who claims to be a follower of His truly is a follower. If Christ wouldn't accept everyone who claims his name, why should I?

Ah, you say, but how do we know then? How do we discern? Well, I would ask, why do we always have to? If it's God's job to judge peoples' hearts, I say let Him do it. It's not that I won't refer to someone as my "brother" if it's fairly obvious or as "unbeliever" if that's fairly obvious, but then there are those in the gray middle...if we are to live by Christ's example, we are under absolutely no obligation to blindly accept everyone's claim of salvation (which is a different thing than judging their hearts as unworthy of salvation). It's okay to say "I don't know".

34

Thanks for your answers Joe.

You wrote;

Not necessarily. I’m simply saying that in the absence of other evidence my first inclination is to believe that those who say they are a Christian are in fact Christians.

The lack of repentance is not evidence enough for you?

I guess you already provided an answer to that question here:

No. A “follower of Christ” means someone who recognizes that Jesus is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, and confesses Christ as their Lord and Savior.

What I find strange is that you also write;

I think you are making to much of my attempt to be generous in assuming that anyone who claims to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior does so with sincerity.

I wonder what you would accept as evidence of insincerity, if anything at all.

You wrote;

I’m not sure what else I can be claiming. I don’t know you personally, don’t know whether your are “saved”, have never observed your behavior, or heard you recite the Nicene Creed. But I assume that you are, as you claim, a “Christian.” Wouldn’t you be offended if I didn’t take you at your word?

Yes, I would, unless you had evidence to the contrary. In Andrew Sullivan's case, you can take him at his word.

35

Boonton writes;

Joe seems to be exhibiting the virtue of humility by not presuming to know the heart of either God or Sullivan. Something I think Sullivan has correctly chided the politicized Christianists of forgetting.

I don't know the heart of Andrew Sullivan either. I do know what he claims though, and he claims to be an unrepentant homosexual. I take him at his word.

Darrell writes;

We don't have the knowledge or ability to judge another person’s relationship with God.

This is true, and it is also a non-sequitor.

We do have the knowledge that others give us. If they claim boldly to be disobedient to the Word of God, why not take them at their word?

ex-preacher wrote;

Eric's comments strike me as especially ironic. As I recall, Eric is a member of the Church of Christ. Many members of his "nondenomination" would not consider Joe a Christian brother.

That may or may not be true, I cannot speak to what others in the Church of Christ might believe about Joe. However, I, as a member of the Church of Christ do consider Joe to be my brother in Christ.

I believe he is wrong about Andrew Sullivan and I do not consider anyone who openly espouses that they are unrepentant to be my brother or sister in Christ.

To my knowledge, Joe has not refused to acknowledge his sin and placed himself above God.

Joe,

I think I know where our disagreement is.

I would not call anyone who is not covered by the sacrifice of Christ to be my brother-in-Christ. It seems clear to me that a person is not able to be covered by Christ's sacrifice on the cross without repentance.

We are unable to tell if someone is truely repentant or not, unless they tell us. My guess is you do not believe repentance is necessary for salvation, and therefore, we have our point of disagreement.

36

Joe,

Sorry for so many posts, had another thought.

Would your congregation allow Porn Stars to worship as members of the body of Christ and continue to work as Porn Stars? Would you allow prostitutes to worship among the Church and continue to be prostitutes?

I hope you don't answer these questions by asking questions, i'm really interested to know.

37

Would-be Sullivan-stoners, I hereby bestow upon you the words of Douglas Adams,

"And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, ..."

38

Don't know much about Douglas Adams other then he is British and wrote Hitchikers guide to the galaxy etc.

But he is wrong, on a technical basis. Overall, yes, Jesus did say that but that is just the surface. A lot of people have said lets be nice to people for a change. That is no big deal and is not worthy of being hanged by a cross.

Being nice to people is a result of the change of heart, the repentance, the renovation of what Jesus really said.

39

Boonton wrote: "If guy in a bar told you his highest value was "having unbound access to vaginal intercourse (most likely he would use less family friendly terminology)" would you assume he was saying he wanted to settle down and marry a nice girl?"
I used Sullivan's fixation on the gay marriage issue as an example of his desire for "unbound access to sodomy" because Sullivan does not want to alter the bounds of his sexual behaviour to fit within the existing institution of marriage; he wants the bounds of marriage changed to suit his preference for man-on-man sodomy.

40

All:

A few remarks:

1] Chris, on Metzinger:

--> Had you followed up the links you would have seen that he was cited as aptly illustrative of a general problem. [Run through Joe's Edge essay citations, to see the point reiterated, again and again.]

--> I could equally have cited Dennett's Center for Naturalism -- which was discussed about a year ago in detail. [And, BTW, a whole lot of the US University system is derivative specifically from the German one -- indeed, it was the Humboldt University of Berlin that pioneered the modern university. In short there is a reason why so much of modern science is replete with german names. Indeed, Zuse was one of the pioneers of computers back in the 40's. The president of the German Cognitive society is as credible a source on the matter as any. That is why he was consulted on the Edge essays.]

--> However, the core point is that there is an issue to address, not duck while resorting to the traditional misleading rhetorical resort of attacking the messenger. For, on evolutionary materialist grounds, one traces all phenomena, including mind and morals, to natural regularities and/or random processes acting on matter through the cosmological, shemical, biological and socio-cultural accidents and evolutions that are postulated.

--> Notice how I am here including as well the non-deterministic process that evolutionary materialism acknowledges: chance.

--So, on such premises, mind is the result of deterministic and chance natural forces, the Nobel Prize winning Scientist Monod's "chance plus necessity." But, blind random forces are just as non-rational and unable to get to credible rationality as would be determinisms, such as Marx's class conditioning, or Skinner's operant conditioning, or Freud's psychological conditioning, etc.

--> Plantinga's classic discussion on the gap between subjective prerception and intent vs survival- and reproduction- enhancing behaviour [which is what natural selection targets] is a classic on the point.

--> As my relatively short and simplified linked note observes in brief, on neither of these bases is there good reason to trust the mind or moral notions. But in fact we must rely on both to function as responsible thinkers, i.e. there is a serious self-referential inconsistency. I do not dounbt the reliability of hte mind, but have ont his basis good reason to doubt the crdibility of views that imply this, including evo mat.

--> Those wishing a more elaborate discussion could look here and here.

2] Namecalling

--> I see that the resort to pejorative names -- which is just what Sullivan wished to achieve by intrroducing "Christianism" by invidious comparison with "Islamism" -- is already beginning to substitute for addressing the core issue: in light of the core warranting argument of the Christian faith [the resurrection of Jesus with 500+ witnesses, and the consequent flow of resurrection power through the church ever since], we do not get to define or redefine what authentic Christian faith is. That was settled way back in C1 by the Apostles, martyrs and confessors, i.e. the eyewitnesses.

--> Thus, the question is not a matter of opinoins among today's chatterati, but a 20 Century long historical fact. In that context, certain lifestyles and ideas that reject rebellion against God are simply inconsistent with authentic Christian faith.

--> I am not of course here saying that authentic Christians do not face temptations and struggles and indeed stumblings -- that too is heresy given 1 Jn 1:5 - 10 -- but it is plain that a mark of the Spirit at work is that one is not comfortable with or rationalising of sin. Instead one persists in the path of penitence and progress, as Rom 2:5 - 11 highlights.

--> Thus, if one persistently advocates what is violently opposed to "the Faith, once for all delivered to the saints" [Jude 3], and lives a lifestyle that is explicitly at odds with the Dreation order, and is actually on the lists of what Christians USED TO BE [1 Cor 6:9 - 11 . . . fornicators, adulterers, also please note], then there is reason to challenge one's claimed Christian faith.

--> It may not be popular to point this out today, but popularity and perceptions have never been reliable indicia of what is true, sound or right. What is needed, is to hold tot he truth in love, power and purity, the key challenge that we all struggle with. But, for all my struggles, i dare not tamper with "the faith, once for al delivered to the saints."

3] A note on Corpus Juris and natural law:

--> As I go about beginning to update an online note on govermnent I have looked this up. The document is a Christian-oriented critical synthesis of 1,000 years of Roman jurisprudence as required by Justinian. Indeed, the preamble begins: IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. It is of course the foundation of both modern european law and the rise of universities in the 1200s was it. [I gather Louisiana is a Corpus Juris jurisdiction, as opposed to the resto fthe US which is Common law - what is the truth on that?]

--> Here is an interesting excerpt:

Justice is the constant and perpetual desire to give to each one that to which he is entitled.

(1) Jurisprudence is the knowledge of matters divine and human, and the comprehension of what is just and what is unjust . . . .

(3) The following are the precepts of the Law: to live honestly, not to injure another, and to give to each one that which belongs to him.

(4) There are two branches of this study, namely: public and private. Public Law is that which concerns the administration of the Roman government; Private Law relates to the interests of individuals. Thus Private Law is said to be threefold in its nature, for it is composed of precepts of Natural Law, of those of the Law of Nations, and of those of the Civil Law . . . .

Natural Law is that which nature has taught to all animals, for this law is not peculiar to the human race, but applies to all creatures which originate in the air, or the earth, and in the sea. Hence arises the union of the male and the female which we designate marriage; and hence are derived the procreation and the education of children; for we see that other animals also act as though endowed with knowledge of this law . . . .

the law which natural reason has established among all mankind and which is equally observed among all peoples, is called the Law of Nations, as being that which all nations make use of . . . .

(11) Natural Laws that are observed without distinction by all nations and have been established by Divine Providence remain always fixed and unchangeable; but those which every State establishes for itself are often changed either by the tacit consent of the people, or by some other law subsequently enacted.

--> In short, it seems that western nations are currently deeply confusing the precepts of natural reason, and are trying to assert civil law in contraditction to natural law. Shipwreck is the predictable result, for no community can change the basic conditions of human moral nature, no more than it can by decree change the law of gravity.

+++++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

41

I claim no great understanding of natural law and its development over the years, but I am not sure how that definition of natural law prohibits homosexuality or civil protections. Animals engage in homosexual behavior in a variety of ways, so nature teaches them that as well. Similarly various groups of people have accepted various forms of homosexuality as a valid part of their culture.

On who is a Christian, so many types of Christianity have existed that I am not sure how one can tell. Sullivan obviously falls under the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by most Christians, though his position on the acceptability of homosexuality is certainly in the minority among the same community. The line may come down to being agnostic on the issue of God's acceptance versus attempting to uphold proper standards for the church. I could see how an arguement could be made for either position based on Paul's writings.

42

I disagree, you can have principles that are just religious in decision making in the public arena!

Well MKL jr was a Baptist preacher. Do you feel, reading any of his political speeches, that one had to convert to Baptism in order to be a political follower of him? Did one need to convert to Catholicism to follow Bishop Tuto in opposing South Africa's regime without violence or taking revenge?

We do have the knowledge that others give us. If they claim boldly to be disobedient to the Word of God, why not take them at their word?

Hmmm, how about those that are humbly disobedient to the Word of God? It is possible for one to sincerely believe God commands something or doesn't command something and be mistaken. It's possible that a Christian can be wrong. Joe is correct in recognizing the common ground he shares with Sullivan and then addressing the differences he has with him. You are incorrect in seeking to focus on the differences first to the exclusion of all else.

I used Sullivan's fixation on the gay marriage issue as an example of his desire for "unbound access to sodomy" because Sullivan does not want to alter the bounds of his sexual behaviour to fit within the existing institution of marriage; he wants the bounds of marriage changed to suit his preference for man-on-man sodomy.

Terry, Terry, Sullivan certainly does not need legalized gay marriage to have "unbound access to sodomy". In fact, if anything, marriage would be "bound access to limited sodomy".

43

All:

A couple of quick notes . . .

1] IE: I am not sure how that definition of natural law prohibits homosexuality or civil protections. Animals engage in homosexual behavior in a variety of ways, so nature teaches them that as well.

--> I expected someone to raise this or something of the sort. Same sex behaviour among animals is dysfunctional and aberrant.

--> observe again the points and implications made in corpus juris:

(1) there is an overwhelmingly obvious pattern evident to the eye of reason, of core morality that undergirds law, so much so that ius gentoum reflects it as a consensus.

(2) the FIRST example of this is: marriage. In short, the overwhelming consensus of the classical world was that marriage reflects the natural order of reproduction and nurture of young.

(3) the fact that this has to be raised in a legal context also implies that there is dysfunctional disordered behaviour that has to be regulated and the regulations backed by force of law. [Otherwise, there would not be a question about the matter in law.]

--> In short, we can expect objections, but they will prove specious relative tot he core point.

2] so many types of Christianity have existed that I am not sure how one can tell.

--> This is a current mantra, pushed by the likes of the Jesus Seminar and the DVC novel and -- soon -- movie. That is, the challenge is that orthodoxy reflects an imposition by political power over and against the original Christian faith, which looks much more like Gnosticism and paganism than like the Apostle's or Nicene or Athanasian Creed etc.

--> While this is enjoying a surge in popular support as it fits in with those who wish to dechristianise western society, and with those who chafe under the moral strictures of the Christian faith, we can note that this is fundamentally historically simply wrongheaded:

1] we can trace the chain of custody on the NT documents to within one generation of their composition, AD 96 - 112, i.e. the first circle of writing church fathers, Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp, cite between them 25 of 27 NT documents, and there is no doubt as to the core faith of these men. Ever since, there has been chain of custody down to today. We have no good reason to doubt that we have in hand an excellent picture of "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" [Jude 3]. That faith is what we find in the NT, and it is what the creeds reflect.

2] We also know that by 64 -5 AD, Christians were being persecuted not just by Jews but by pagans. if their faith was the sort of paganistic mystery religion in DVC etc, this would be simply inexplicable. By sharpest contrast, the message in the AD 55 1 Cor makes very plain just why the Christian faith was intellectually objectionable and the perhaps circa 62 AD Phil 2: 5 - 11 [citing a creedal hymn of much earlier date!] makes plain why Caesar feared Christ as a rival Lord:

1CO 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

PHP 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

PHP 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

PHP 2:7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

PHP 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!

PHP 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,

PHP 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

PHP 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.[Cf Isa 45:18 - 23!]

3] nor are we left to Christian sources on this. Barnett summarises in his Is the NT History? from Jewish and pagan sources, thusly:

On the basis of . . . non-Christian sources [i.e. Tacitus (Annals, on the fire in Rome, AD 64; written ~ AD 115), Rabbi Eliezer (~ 90's AD; cited J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1929), p. 34), Pliny (Letters to Trajan from Bithynia, ~ AD 112), Josephus (Antiquities, ~ 90's)] it is possible to draw the following conclusions:

1. Jesus Christ was executed (by crucifixion?) in Judaea during the period where Tiberius was Emperor (AD 14 - 37) and Pontius Pilate was Governor (AD 26 - 36). [Tacitus]
2. The movement spread from Judaea to Rome. [Tacitus]
3. Jesus claimed to be God and that he would depart and return. [Eliezer]
4. His followers worshipped him as (a) god. [Pliny]
5. He was called "the Christ." [Josephus]
6. His followers were called "Christians." [Tacitus, Pliny]
7. They were numerous in Bithynia and Rome [Tacitus, Pliny]
8. It was a world-wide movement. [Eliezer]
9. His brother was James. [Josephus]

[Is the New Testament History? (London, Hodder, 1987), pp. 30 - 31.]

4] Rather, it is more accurate to say that the DVC's view simply distorts C2 - 4 Gnosticism not to mention a lot of other things in an ill-informed attempt to discredit the historically authentic Christian faith, and that the Jesus Seminar reflects a radical, selective -- thus self-refuting -- hyperskepticism driven by its antichristian agenda.

--> In short, by very ordinary processes of evidence and commonly used "glorified common-sense" principles for assessing factual, forensic and historical evidence, we can know to moral certainty what the C1 Christian faith was, and the authenticity of the creedal expressions of that faith down to today.

--> On the related question of warranting that core worldview-claim, I draw attention to the point made by Morison, over 70 years ago now:

“now the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus’ resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . . Why did it win? . . . . We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not – how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Grreat Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecutor became the leading Missionary!] – we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact . . . “ [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971), pp. 114 – 115.]

3] his position on the acceptability of homosexuality is certainly in the minority among the same community.

--> The issue in the authentically Christian church is not homosexuality. As I excerpted above, from at least AD 55 and 57 or so on, the Apostolic faith has been at one on the point that such deviant sexual conduct is outside of the Creation order and reflects a profound distortion of our passional nature as we turn from God in rebellion, and indeed distorting what is evident from nature itself, which reflects the mind of its Creator. Beyond that, the clear recorded teaching of Judaism is the same, from circa 1500 BC on.

--> The issue, in short, as Eric and Lisa say, is REPENTANCE. Citing 1 Cor 6:9 - 11 again:

1CO 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

--> the apostolic words could not be plainer, as he gives yardsticks for the sort of behaviour which is utterly incompatible with the kingdom of God: sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers . . .

--> Thank God, there is hope for us struggling sinners, as he goes on: 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
So, we may struggle in the path of righteousness, but there is supernatural help, once we are repentant. [And, BTW, to date, there is still no good evidence that homosexual conduct is genetically imprinted -- nor would a predisposition to a particular dysfunctional behaviour justify its indulgence -- cf. drunkards/alcoholics]

--> One may for whatever reason wish to use the label "Christian" for oneself, but if one does not align with the authentic and well-warranted C1 NT faith, unfortunately one is doing so under false colours.

--> A truly repentant sinner undergoes a moral struggle, and stumbles -- God knows, we stumble bigtime, every day! -- but he point is that there is penitence and walking in the path of the good. As Eph 2:8 - 10 sums up:

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

--> In the end, no fruit of repentance, no roots in repentant faith in Jesus.

4] The line may come down to being agnostic on the issue of God's acceptance versus attempting to uphold proper standards for the church. I could see how an argument could be made for either position based on Paul's writings.

--> Paul is quite plain, in fact: moral struggle, but with progress is the mark of the true Christian. Excusing and attempting to justify the sort of sins in the lists he gave is a strong sign of lack of penitence. lack of penitence is a serious sign of lack of eternal life.

5] B: Did one need to convert to Catholicism to follow Bishop Tuto in opposing South Africa's regime without violence or taking revenge?

--> First, minor point: Tutu is an Anglican.

--> Secondly, Terry is adverting to the fact that one's worldview is a legitimate source of ones political agenda, and that there is a common ground -- i.e. the obvious and objective principles of natural law -- that leads to reformation struggles in the teeth of existing civil law that is disordered.

--> Indeed, in Corpus Juris, there is an interesting discussion of slavery that Locke echoes: war captives and those who have forfeited life due to actions against he common good. Salvery is viewed as a "humane" -- I guess -- alternative to putting to death. The openness to abuse through kidnapping, and though the successful launching of wars of aggression to get captives for the slave markets -- kidnapping on the grand scale -- is obvious.

--> What happens here is that, bibles in hand, several centuries ago now, Christian people began to have serious doubts and raised challenges first tot he trade then to slavery itself. in the British empire, it came to a head with the Baptist War rebellion in Jamaica -- which started as a sit-down strike for pay -- i.e. Sam Sharpe is really the patron saint of unionism!

--> But the harsh suppression capped off by burning dissenter chapels [they knew their enemies: those who taught the Bible plainly!] reacted off political crisis in England and Wales at the time, leading to the throwing of the WI planters to the wolves. In short, slavery and Bible-believing Christian faith proved to be utterly irreconcilable int he end, once the principle of freedom in the NT was accepted in the community. [BTW, Corpus Juris recognises that men are naturally born free . . .]

6] Sullivan certainly does not need legalized gay marriage to have "unbound access to sodomy". In fact, if anything, marriage would be "bound access to limited sodomy".

--> Misconceptions on both sides: the evidence is, that so-called "open" so-called "marriage" is what is in view. The issue is to access legal privileges given to the married because of the state's interest in nurturing the next generation. thence, arguably -- and by direct statement of st least several advocates -- to destroy marriage and the family as we know it, not to mention sexual morality as we know it.

++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

44

--> I expected someone to raise this or something of the sort. Same sex behaviour among animals is dysfunctional and aberrant.

If aberrant simply means not the majority then that tells us nothing. Dysfunctional also tells us nothing. How do you know homosexual behavior among animals is dysfunctional? Just because you say so?

--> Secondly, Terry is adverting to the fact that one's worldview is a legitimate source of ones political agenda, and that there is a common ground -- i.e. the obvious and objective principles of natural law -- that leads to reformation struggles in the teeth of existing civil law that is disordered.

True but the worldview is only the source, the argument must be presented in terms of common ground. The Catholic telling me I must oppose abortion politically must have more than simply telling me that doing so would align me with the Catholic faith. Likewise MLK Jr. was not trying to make his political followers good Baptists and did not ask them to become such even if his Baptist faith was the source of his political ideas.

--> Misconceptions on both sides: the evidence is, that so-called "open" so-called "marriage" is what is in view. ...

Whatever others might have argued Sullivan has been very clear that he is not a supporter of 'open marriage'. Hence it is unfair to pretend that he is some sort of secret advocate of it. This inability to respect others and their arguments is a hallmark of what ailes the political right and the religious right as well these days.

45

--> I expected someone to raise this or something of the sort. Same sex behaviour among animals is dysfunctional and aberrant.

If aberrant simply means not the majority then that tells us nothing. Dysfunctional also tells us nothing. How do you know homosexual behavior among animals is dysfunctional? Just because you say so?

--> Secondly, Terry is adverting to the fact that one's worldview is a legitimate source of ones political agenda, and that there is a common ground -- i.e. the obvious and objective principles of natural law -- that leads to reformation struggles in the teeth of existing civil law that is disordered.

True but the worldview is only the source, the argument must be presented in terms of common ground. The Catholic telling me I must oppose abortion politically must have more than simply telling me that doing so would align me with the Catholic faith. Likewise MLK Jr. was not trying to make his political followers good Baptists and did not ask them to become such even if his Baptist faith was the source of his political ideas.

--> Misconceptions on both sides: the evidence is, that so-called "open" so-called "marriage" is what is in view. ...

Whatever others might have argued Sullivan has been very clear that he is not a supporter of 'open marriage'. Hence it is unfair to pretend that he is some sort of secret advocate of it. This inability to respect others and their arguments is a hallmark of what ailes the political right and the religious right as well these days.

46

Boonton wrote;

Hmmm, how about those that are humbly disobedient to the Word of God?

Wait, is this like the Jackalop?

47

Jackalop?

48

Well, Terence once bore false witness against me and refused to acknowledge or apologize for it once he was called out. That would seem to be disobedient to the Word of God. I don't know if that was 'boldly' disobedient but I don't think I should make a big fuss if in some future post he tells us he is a Christian. I'll take him at his word and assume he is a Christian who is in error.

Would your congregation allow Porn Stars to worship as members of the body of Christ and continue to work as Porn Stars? Would you allow prostitutes to worship among the Church and continue to be prostitutes?

I would hope so. I was raised Catholic, haven't been to Church in years (don't be shocked!) but I couldn't imagine a mass in a big city where a bouncer at the door would bar a prostitute or porn star from attending. I couldn't even imagine them kicking a prostitute out of mass or banning one from visiting the Church even if they knew in an hour or so she'd be out prostituting again.

I don't know how other Churchs conduct their worship but this feels like it is the more correct policy. I'd hate to think that if Andrew Sullivan, Terence and a Porn Star ever shared a cab and showed up at a Church the doors would be barred to them and they'd be told to try going to the Wicca center downtown.

49

You are to responsible debate what hyenas are to opera . . .
but every so often you say something that makes me laugh out loud. Congratulations.

50

Mulling says:

A couple of quick notes . . .

1] IE: I am not sure how that definition of natural law prohibits homosexuality or civil protections. Animals engage in homosexual behavior in a variety of ways, so nature teaches them that as well.

--> I expected someone to raise this or something of the sort. Same sex behaviour among animals is dysfunctional and aberrant.

--> observe again the points and implications made in corpus juris:

(1) there is an overwhelmingly obvious pattern evident to the eye of reason, of core morality that undergirds law, so much so that ius gentoum reflects it as a consensus.
(2) the FIRST example of this is: marriage. In short, the overwhelming consensus of the classical world was that marriage reflects the natural order of reproduction and nurture of young.

(3) the fact that this has to be raised in a legal context also implies that there is dysfunctional disordered behaviour that has to be regulated and the regulations backed by force of law. [Otherwise, there would not be a question about the matter in law.]

--> In short, we can expect objections, but they will prove specious relative tot he core point.

First off, Quick notes? I do not think that means what you seem to think it means.

--> I expected someone to raise this or something of the sort. Same sex behaviour among animals is dysfunctional and aberrant.

Says who? You? God? Being in the minority is not the same thing as "dysfunctional and aberrant". Thats a personal value judgement you are making, not one based on "Natural Law". Or even the Bible, for that matter. You would have the same feeling about the subject if you had never read a word of the Bible. Prejudice is like that you know. As it so often comes down do, its a matter of who says what God says. If everyone had the "absolute faith" that Joe espouses, supposedly based on such iron-clad facts, everyone one of you would still be Catholic, there would never have been a Reformation.

And those cute little male penguins who raised several penguin chicks seem to have done all right. And incidentally, those chicks that had been cast off by heterosexual penguins would probably have died otherwise. Or in the case of the onese they stole, it did allow the breeder penguins to raise more chicks of thier own. Or better provide for the ones that they had. A large family of nine is not a survival characteristic if you can only feed four.
_______________

Joe, Andrew has never claimed to represent all Christians. I suppose this was "humor" on your part. Keep up with the practice on that. You need it.

And Joe, the issue of your absolutist faith versus a faith of reason and doubt has been around even before Jesus was born. It did not arrive on the scene with Andrew Sullivan.

I think your main problem with him is simply that he is eloquent, can argue well, and that above all, that many, many, people listen and read what he says. He has a "congregation" many would envy.

51

Boonton;

Here is a link where you can take a gander at the ever elusive jackalop.

http://www.math-cs.cmsu.edu/~curtisc/photos/jackalop.html

52

All:

Rather sadly predictable onward remarks. A pity.

Sexuality among animals is of course directly tied to reproduction and nurture of the young in those animals that require nurture. Same sex behaviour among the animals is OBVIOUSLY -- i.e. compellingly objective save to those who wilfully refuse to see -- counter to this.

Among humans, again, the basic lesson of nature is equally obvious: our children require the longest period of nurture of any known mammal, and sexual inercourse is the obvious means by which we procreate.

That is the context in which Corpus Juris spoke, and in which the NT and the OT outlined that marriage [i.e. between man and woman] and stable family life are an integral part of our creation order. The point of the cite from CJ is that this is the consensus view of the classical world of which the Romans were aware -- one that reached as far as India and China. A pretty fair slice of cultures and times I'd say; thus, the inference that marriage reflects natural law.

But, then, the path of thought in rebellion against God is all too sadly predictable, again from Rom 1 - 2:

RO 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. [In short, nature, mind and morals have in them the unmistakeable stamp: made by God. We reject that by insisting on begging worldview questions in an atmosphere of hostility to our Creator, because in the end we wish to live a life out of proper order in creation -- thus, the chaos that flows from our rebellion. This, Paul now details . . .]

RO 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. [And, images on TV, in movies, or in museums -- notice the subtlety "made to look like" [then cf. how dinosaurs etc are reconstructed, and how they are surrounded with the evolutionary materialist self-refuting myth of origins under false colour of knowledge], magazines and textbooks are in principle no different from those in the old pagan temples]

RO 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

RO 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

RO 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity . . . 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them . . . .

2:6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. . . . 11 For God does not show favoritism.

When we become approvers of evil, sadly, that is not a good sign. Let us think again.

Finally, on comparing a few penguin chicks with the prospects for children raised in contexts that set out to deliberately counter what over 10,000 studies on human nurture show [and as common sense tells us] -- that stable heterosexual family structures are the foundation for human thriving -- I think that is sufficiently strained to fall of its own weight. [Just think of the implications of NAMBLA's advocacy on this, and a lot of record on the incidence of pedophilia. In short there is a reason -- and a track record -- why for instance the Boy Scouts take the stance they take.]

++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

53

Sexuality among animals is of course directly tied to reproduction and nurture of the young in those animals that require nurture. Same sex behaviour among the animals is OBVIOUSLY -- i.e. compellingly objective save to those who wilfully refuse to see -- counter to this.

Sexuality among animals is tied to different purposes. Many species use sexuality as a tool for community building..hence end up having more sex than is necessary for reproduction. Other species use sex for mating and nothing else.

Among humans an undeniable fact is that it is difficult to see sex's purpose as primarily reproductive. Even 'old world' families that have a huge number of children (10-15 kids) will have many, many, many more acts of sex than is required. For humans sex tends to bind us to one another. An individual is likely to stick by and help a sexual partner because he or she is likely to desire more encounters with that partner. Among other types of animals, however, once mating is done the two animals have no interest in each other and go their ways.

Good thing for humans, though, because as you correctly observe:

our children require the longest period of nurture of any known mammal

Unlike other species, we don't just drop our kids in a field and expect them to walk on their own in under an hour. They require a long period of nurture but even before that the pregnant woman is harshly disabled during pregnancy and after birth. If humans were not bound closely to each other we would never successfully reproduce.

We had a long and productive discussion about this in a previous thread. Before you can reproduce you have to be stable yourself. Humans, being social creatures, require other humans for stability. The 'mountain man' who lives in the woods, entirely off the land and independent of any other human is mostly a myth. Sex in humans (and some other animals) serves an important purpose of pushing humans together into tight knit groups. Humans are very vulnerable alone but ironically together they are amazingly powerful. One man in a forest will soon die but put dozen together in a forest and the forest will be lucky to be around 100 years later.

Sullivan is correct that stable family life is a positive for humans. For that reason he has argued for gay marriage as providing for stability for gay people. He has honestly recognized that gays are and forever will be a small portion of the population BUT unlike some on the right he has come to terms with the fact that gays will also always be part of the human family. They will never 'just go away' as more than a few people on this list probably would wish them too.

That is the context in which Corpus Juris spoke, and in which the NT and the OT outlined that marriage [i.e. between man and woman] and stable family life are an integral part of our creation order.

Integral does not mean only. To use an illustration consider the Catholic Church. Nuns and priests take vows of chastity and forgo marriage and children. Whether or not you agree with Catholic doctrine is not material here. The idea that the Church is going after is that this life is meant for total dedication to God. However the Church is not under any foolish notions. It knows that if everyone became nuns and priests there would never be any children and the human race would go extinct in a generation. That is not the goal. The Catholic Church knows that for the super-majority of people they will have some type of hetrosexual relationship (mostly ending in marriage) and have children. In this sense it is indeed 'intregral' to the human condition. On the other hand some will be different. In the case of the Catholic Church this difference is those who choose Holy Orders.

54

All:

Interesting isn't it -- but in the end quite sad -- how hard it can be to see the obvious.

1] B: Many species use sexuality as a tool for community building..hence end up having more sex than is necessary for reproduction. Other species use sex for mating and nothing else.

--> And, the primary purpose of sex is . . . reproduction, i.e. it is the means by which future generations enter the world and the family provides the context in which offspring can be protected and nurtured.

--> Let us recall that first things are first things, and second things are second things. It is the first things that Corpus Juris was adverting to when it observed:

(4) There are two branches of this study, namely: public and